1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |PODCAST: CETA, ISDS, and the Belgian Veto – A Warning of Failure for Future Trade Agreements with the EU?

PODCAST: CETA, ISDS, and the Belgian Veto – A Warning of Failure for Future Trade Agreements with the EU?

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.17

The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) was expected to be finalized in the fall of 2016. However, final agreement was vetoed by politicians in Belgium, specifically by parties in Wallonia and Brussels, over issues related to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter.

Ian Laird and Flip Petillion, partners in Crowell & Moring’s International Dispute Resolution Group, sit down for this special Crowell & Moring podcast to discuss CETA—what happened and what it could mean for the future of EU and Canada trade, and international investment arbitration.

Ian, resident in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, is a Canadian-qualified lawyer and previously served as chief of staff to a Canadian cabinet minister, as well as a senior political aide to the Ontario Minister of Energy. Ian represents companies engaged in U.S.-Canada trade and business relations and has provided counsel on NAFTA dispute settlement issues for more than 15 years.

Flip, resident in Crowell & Moring's Brussels office, is a leading domestic and international negotiator, litigator, and arbitrator. He has been handling arbitrations for more than 25 years.

Discussed in this 27 minute podcast:

  • How it's possible for individual regions within a signatory country to block the agreement.
  • The objections raised against CETA and the ISDS chapter.
  • What to expect next.
  • Implications on future trade agreements with the EU.

Click below to listen or access from the link:
SoundCloud

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26

ASBCA Denies Government Motion to Dismiss, Providing Key Guidance on Contractor Claim Standards Post-ECC International

In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer. ...

View All Insights